Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Index/Principles

{{ombox|image=none|imageright={{shortcut|WT:ARBPRINCIPLES}}|text=

Use this page to discuss information on the page (and any subpages) attached to this one.

Some things belong on other pages:

discussing the Arbitration policy: WT:Arbitration/Policy
discussing the Arbitration Committee, as a body: WT:Arbitration Committee
requesting Arbitration: WP:A/R
discussing the process of Arbitration: WT:A/R
discussing finalised decisions (including interpretation of the principles listed on this page): WT:ACN
discussing pending decisions: find the proceedings page at Template:Casenav

}}

Requested move 8 December 2020

:The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved in accordance with clerk authority over {{tq|1=administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages}} ({{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Procedures_and_roles}}). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

----

:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles 2 → {{no redirect|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles}}
:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles → {{no redirect|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles (historical)}}

– The currently maintained page should be at the more obvious name, and the historical version (if kept at all) moved out of the way. The maintained page is pretty hard to find, unless you happen to guess at a good search string to combine with intitle:Arbitration in a Wikipedia: namespace search. The old page hasn't been substantively updated since 2013 (or even 2010, depending on your definition of "substantive") and serves no useful purpose, especially since the statements in it have already been merged into the newer page. After move, we could just add a link to the old page in the new page's "See also". Another option is simply merging them entirely, since there may be no compelling reason to keep the old page separate at all. PS: Neither of these pages are "official" ArbCom pages, but indexes of ArbCom output maintained by various editors as community information pages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Overall change is fine; I might prefer Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles/Pre-2020 or similar (both preferring subpage and a more descriptive historical name). --Izno (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting this page into sections

Because this page is too long, I suggest splitting this page into five sections: A-E; F-J; K-O; P-V; W-Z; to be able to read it more easily. Thingofme (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Accountability entry belongs to Administrator Accountability

I'm not sure what order the entries are supposed to be in, as one in Administrator Accountability is non-chronological, but clearly the Accountability entry belongs in the same topic/section as the Administrator Accountability entries. AltoStev (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:It was a carbon copy of a principle in {{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Administrator accountability}}; {{done|removed}}. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)